Ahmet Şık, who once exposed FETÖ's game, remanded on the allegation of making FETÖ propaganda

Cumhuriyet newspaper’s reporter, journalist Ahmet Şık, has been remanded in custody charged with making propaganda for two different organisations. The judge who remanded Şık said that he had acted in coordination with FETÖ/PDY and the PKK in the course of the coup attempt.

Ahmet Şık was remanded in custody accused of making propaganda for the PKK/KCK and FETÖ/PDY organisations by Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace No 8, where he had been brought with an application by the prosecution for his remand citing his reports and Twitter posts as grounds.

Judge Atila Öztürk, stating that there was an apparent contradiction in this ruling in that these two organisations were different from one another, made the pronouncement, ‘When consideration is given to investigations and information that has become public in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt, it appears that these two externally supported organisations acted in coordination during the coup and afterwards.’

TWITTER POSTS

Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace No 8 judge Atila Öztürk, listing the posts and news featuring in the investigation into Şık, alleged that the same points were also voiced by members of the PKK and FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organisation.

Judge Öztürk, alleging that Ahmet Şık had pointed to the Republic of Turkey state and its officials as a country that supported terrorist organisations, asserted that actions by terrorist organisations that have been substantiated in judicial decisions to be armed terrorist organisations were made to appear legitimate through the use of legal terms such as war and struggle.

Öztürk, recalling the trenches made by organisation members in south-eastern provinces where there was conflict, alleged that Şık, in using terms like, ‘murderer, mafia, violence’ with reference to the state and law enforcement officials, ‘Pointed to the state’s fight against terror as being an illegal or even terrorist activity.’ Öztürk, mentioning the bombings that had occurred at various places in Turkey, argued, ‘Propaganda for the terrorist organisation was conducted through the making of posts to the effect that state officials had started a war and had caused these bombs to be set off.’

The judge solves the coup attempt riddle

Judge Öztürk, noting that even though Şık was a journalist there were limits to press freedom and freedom of expression, stated, ‘Even if there is an apparent contradiction in the suspect’s comments serving as propaganda for the PKK and FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organisations in that these two organisations are different from one another, when consideration is given to investigations and information that has become public in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt, it appears that these two externally supported organisations acted in coordination in the course of the coup and afterwards, and so the comments made by the suspect that serve as propaganda for both organisations do not constitute a contradiction and served the same purpose.’ Judge Öztürk, alleging that Şık continued with his accusatory comments directed at the state and state officials in his defence, indicated that evidence existed that pointed to the strong suspicion of guilt. Öztürk, stating that Şık had not displayed any remorse whatsoever, asserted that his statements in the course of interrogation were of the same nature as comments by organisation members. Cumhuriyet newspaper reporter Ahmet Şık was arrested yesterday with tweets he had posted cited as grounds. Following his statement to the prosecution, Ahmet Şık was brought before the court with a remand application charged with ‘making organisational propaganda.’

Ahmet Şık, once jailed by FETÖ, now remanded for FETÖ involvement

Cumhuriyet newspaper’s reporter, journalist Ahmet Şık, was remanded in custody today, charged with having made propaganda for three different organisations, FETÖ, DHKP-C, and the PKK, by the Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace at Çağlayan Judicial Complex where he was brought.

Ahmet Şık was remanded in custody under a plot by FETÖist policemen and prosecutors in March 2011 for having written the book “The Imam’s Army’ about Fetullah Gülen, before the book was even printed, and spent one year in jail as part of the ODA TV trial. The same journalist, Ahmet Şık, has now been remanded on charges of making propaganda for the FETÖ organisation. The FETÖist judges, prosecutors and policemen who remanded Ahmet Şık in 2011, most notably former prosecutor Zekeriya Öz, have now either fled abroad or are on remand.

AHMET ŞIK: KEEP YOUR SPIRITS UP

Ahmet Şık, who has been taken to Metris prison, has sent a message through CHP Istanbul MP Barış Yarkadaş, “Let everyone keep their spirits up. This strength and this power will not remain in their hands and Turkey will most certainly attain enlightenment.’

Şık, embracing his wife Yonca as he left the judicial complex, called out, ‘Take good care of our daughter.’

ASKED ABOUT HIS TWEETS

It is noteworthy that the questions Ahmet Şık was asked during his prosecution interrogation revolved around the tweets he has posted. Ahmet Şık said in his statement, ‘When I was accused of connections with the Ergenekon organisation of five years ago, my professional activities were made the subject of the investigation. Now the attempt is being made to subject my professional activities to an investigation given another name.’

 

In the prosecution investigation, Ahmet Şık was asked about the tweets taking the form ‘They preferred to slaughter Tahir Elçi rather than detain him – you are a mafia-like horde of killers’, ‘Why will those who believe that the state started a war to prevent investigation into crimes that were assuming mafia-like proportions not believe that it set off bombs,’ ‘Ağar, the actor in the past behind the most hawkish acts in the Kurdish issue, took to the stage at that time with rhetoric about a political solution to the problem,’ ‘If you say the murderer was the state you become degenerate,’ and ‘With the government and its lackeys striving to prove that the assassin was a FETÖist and not a Nusraist, what are you going to do about the fact that the assassin was a policeman?’ made on the account with the user name ‘@sahmetsahmet’ at the social media site named Twitter

 

The prosecutor, indicating that Ahmet Şık's tweets were deemed to constitute the offences of ‘making propaganda for a terrorist organisation’ and ‘publicly denigrating the Republic of Turkey, its judicial organs and military and police organisation’ regulated in Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code number 5237, asked for the latter’s statement in this regard.

Ahmet Şık replied, ‘I will decide whether to answer once I have seen and learnt of all of the questions and posts; I do not wish to reply to this question just now.’

It is noteworthy that, even though he does not work at the web site, the prosecutor asked such questions as ‘What is your duty at the web site named www.cumhuriyet.com.tr? Since what date have you carried out this duty?’

ACCUSATION LIFTED FROM A SABAH REPORTER’S ARTICLE

One of the prosecutor’s accusations was also the allegation to the effect that, ‘Ahmet Şık, who published the letter by prosecutor Özcan Şişman, who played a key role in the intelligence agency lorries plot and is under remand for FETÖ involvement, in Cumhuriyet newspaper, is accused by this means of diverting the attack to the intelligence agency and trying to paper over FETÖ’s influence in the affair’ as written by Sabah newspaper reporter Nazif Kahraman at the said paper’s web site.

Finally, to the prosecutor’s accusation, ‘Prior to the murder of the slain Republic Prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, did you have discussions in any way with the people who were responsible for the event? Did you conduct an interview? Did these people make contact with you or did you make contact with these people and what is your connection with these people? Make your statements in this regard,’ Ahmet Şık made an answer that covered all the questions by saying:

‘I wish to make an answer in general terms to all the above questions. Had the 15 July putsch attempt succeeded, we would have experienced what we are now experiencing, that is, the coup having been prevented does not alter the fact that a junta is in power, and in such a period I deem it to be an insult to my professional ethics for my professional activities to be subjected to investigation, nor may anybody presume to do this, in a procedure in which the very judiciary, which in any case has a history of being problematic, is so weakly associated with the law.

I thus do not wish to reply to these questions; had the judiciary been capable of being independent, impartial and just, then I would have wished to reply and, in any case, there would have been no such investigation. One of the questions that the prosecutor’s office posed was posed premised on a report signed by Nazif Karaman and published in Sabah newspaper; in the news report certain points are raised in which I am accused citing the prosecutor’s office, but the question relates directly to the matter reported in the news article. It took the form of asking me to comment on the allegation of the person who wrote the story.

Is the prosecutor’s office that reports to the Ministry of Justice conducting the investigation, or is a media employee conducting it? I have previously experienced the routine that is now being staged. The days of war currently being experienced are the upshot of the battle for the throne between the AKP and the Gülen Brotherhood that erupted in 2011, and we now find ourselves confronted by, to use the word that has acquired currency, FETÖ, which refers to the Gülen Brotherhood, which previously had a name that few people even dared to mention. In the Ergenekon process, those in the Gülen Brotherhood’s ranks who constituted a criminal organisation embedded within the police and judiciary and the AKP government that acted as this gang’s political approval office initially subjected whoever they targeted to character assassination with unfounded accusations in media organs close to them, then the targeted people were arrested by police officers belonging to this criminal organisation and, at the end of their time under arrest, they were brought before the prosecutor’s office that was another adjunct of the criminal organisation and the fate you would meet there was already known. Being sent with an application for remand, with the judges in any case being another link in the criminal organisation’s chain, was part of a predetermined routine involving accusation, investigation and sentencing. As a result of the war waged against one another by the two former partners, members of the Gülen Brotherhood’s ranks appear to have been purged to a large extent from the police force and judiciary. But the process of trampling on the law that we encountered in that period continues to play out with new placemen and in a viler manner. When I was accused of having connections to the Ergenekon organisation five years ago, my professional activities were subjected to investigation. Now the attempt is being made to subject my professional activities to investigation under another name and, at this stage, I have nothing more to say.

THE PROSECUTOR HAS NO PERMISSION TO INVESTIGATE UNDER ARTICLE 301

One of Ahmet Şık's lawyers, Tora Pekin, has said that investigation under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code is subject to permission and questioned whether this permission had been obtained. Regarded the accusations levelled against Ahmet Şık, lawyer Pekin, saying, ‘It is not absolutely clear what the accusation is from the questions asked,’ said ‘It is impossible to fathom which article of the Turkish Penal Code has been breached, and on what grounds. This situation is in violation of express provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Questions such as, “What do you think” or “What did you mean” can only be used to gauge intentions and not to hold an interrogation into any crime.’

THEY POSED NAZİF KARAMAN'S STORY AS A QUESTION

Lawyer Can Atalay also noted that the arrest procedure was unlawful and made a reminder that journalism was a public duty. Atalay stated that a printout taken from the internet of a story written by Nazif Karaman, a reporter on the pro-AKP Sabah newspaper, after Şık had been arrested was read directly and posed as a question and this was also unlawful.

PERMANENT TWEET ASKED ABOUT

It is noteworthy that, among the questions Ahmet Şık was asked, one was about the tweet that is permanently positioned on his Twitter profile. The prosecutor posed the question to Ahmet Şık, ‘What and who was referred to in the post, “Its God changes, it does not change itself and the only religion is fascism” at your Twitter account? Explain this matter.’

AHMET ŞIK'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN BREACHED

Lawyer Evren İşler, noting that the charge had not been made in concrete terms, also pointed out that a great many of Ahmet Şık’s rights enshrined under the Constitution and international agreements had been breached.

Cumhuriyet newspaper’s reporter, journalist Ahmet Şık, has been remanded in custody charged with making propaganda for two different organisations. The judge who remanded Şık said that he had acted in coordination with FETÖ/PDY and the PKK in the course of the coup attempt.

Ahmet Şık was remanded in custody accused of making propaganda for the PKK/KCK and FETÖ/PDY organisations by Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace No 8, where he had been brought with an application by the prosecution for his remand citing his reports and Twitter posts as grounds.

Judge Atila Öztürk, stating that there was an apparent contradiction in this ruling in that these two organisations were different from one another, made the pronouncement, ‘When consideration is given to investigations and information that has become public in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt, it appears that these two externally supported organisations acted in coordination during the coup and afterwards.’

TWITTER POSTS

Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace No 8 judge Atila Öztürk, listing the posts and news featuring in the investigation into Şık, alleged that the same points were also voiced by members of the PKK and FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organisation.

Judge Öztürk, alleging that Ahmet Şık had pointed to the Republic of Turkey state and its officials as a country that supported terrorist organisations, asserted that actions by terrorist organisations that have been substantiated in judicial decisions to be armed terrorist organisations were made to appear legitimate through the use of legal terms such as war and struggle.

Öztürk, recalling the trenches made by organisation members in south-eastern provinces where there was conflict, alleged that Şık, in using terms like, ‘murderer, mafia, violence’ with reference to the state and law enforcement officials, ‘Pointed to the state’s fight against terror as being an illegal or even terrorist activity.’ Öztürk, mentioning the bombings that had occurred at various places in Turkey, argued, ‘Propaganda for the terrorist organisation was conducted through the making of posts to the effect that state officials had started a war and had caused these bombs to be set off.’

The judge solves the coup attempt riddle

Judge Öztürk, noting that even though Şık was a journalist there were limits to press freedom and freedom of expression, stated, ‘Even if there is an apparent contradiction in the suspect’s comments serving as propaganda for the PKK and FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organisations in that these two organisations are different from one another, when consideration is given to investigations and information that has become public in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt, it appears that these two externally supported organisations acted in coordination in the course of the coup and afterwards, and so the comments made by the suspect that serve as propaganda for both organisations do not constitute a contradiction and served the same purpose.’ Judge Öztürk, alleging that Şık continued with his accusatory comments directed at the state and state officials in his defence, indicated that evidence existed that pointed to the strong suspicion of guilt. Öztürk, stating that Şık had not displayed any remorse whatsoever, asserted that his statements in the course of interrogation were of the same nature as comments by organisation members. Cumhuriyet newspaper reporter Ahmet Şık was arrested yesterday with tweets he had posted cited as grounds. Following his statement to the prosecution, Ahmet Şık was brought before the court with a remand application charged with ‘making organisational propaganda.’

Ahmet Şık, once jailed by FETÖ, now remanded for FETÖ involvement

Cumhuriyet newspaper’s reporter, journalist Ahmet Şık, was remanded in custody today, charged with having made propaganda for three different organisations, FETÖ, DHKP-C, and the PKK, by the Istanbul Penal Bench of the Peace at Çağlayan Judicial Complex where he was brought.

Ahmet Şık was remanded in custody under a plot by FETÖist policemen and prosecutors in March 2011 for having written the book “The Imam’s Army’ about Fetullah Gülen, before the book was even printed, and spent one year in jail as part of the ODA TV trial. The same journalist, Ahmet Şık, has now been remanded on charges of making propaganda for the FETÖ organisation. The FETÖist judges, prosecutors and policemen who remanded Ahmet Şık in 2011, most notably former prosecutor Zekeriya Öz, have now either fled abroad or are on remand.

AHMET ŞIK: KEEP YOUR SPIRITS UP

Ahmet Şık, who has been taken to Metris prison, has sent a message through CHP Istanbul MP Barış Yarkadaş, “Let everyone keep their spirits up. This strength and this power will not remain in their hands and Turkey will most certainly attain enlightenment.’

Şık, embracing his wife Yonca as he left the judicial complex, called out, ‘Take good care of our daughter.’

ASKED ABOUT HIS TWEETS

It is noteworthy that the questions Ahmet Şık was asked during his prosecution interrogation revolved around the tweets he has posted. Ahmet Şık said in his statement, ‘When I was accused of connections with the Ergenekon organisation of five years ago, my professional activities were made the subject of the investigation. Now the attempt is being made to subject my professional activities to an investigation given another name.’

In the prosecution investigation, Ahmet Şık was asked about the tweets taking the form ‘They preferred to slaughter Tahir Elçi rather than detain him – you are a mafia-like horde of killers’, ‘Why will those who believe that the state started a war to prevent investigation into crimes that were assuming mafia-like proportions not believe that it set off bombs,’ ‘Ağar, the actor in the past behind the most hawkish acts in the Kurdish issue, took to the stage at that time with rhetoric about a political solution to the problem,’ ‘If you say the murderer was the state you become degenerate,’ and ‘With the government and its lackeys striving to prove that the assassin was a FETÖist and not a Nusraist, what are you going to do about the fact that the assassin was a policeman?’ made on the account with the user name ‘@sahmetsahmet’ at the social media site named Twitter

The prosecutor, indicating that Ahmet Şık's tweets were deemed to constitute the offences of ‘making propaganda for a terrorist organisation’ and ‘publicly denigrating the Republic of Turkey, its judicial organs and military and police organisation’ regulated in Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code number 5237, asked for the latter’s statement in this regard.

Ahmet Şık replied, ‘I will decide whether to answer once I have seen and learnt of all of the questions and posts; I do not wish to reply to this question just now.’

It is noteworthy that, even though he does not work at the web site, the prosecutor asked such questions as ‘What is your duty at the web site named www.cumhuriyet.com.tr? Since what date have you carried out this duty?’

ACCUSATION LIFTED FROM A SABAH REPORTER’S ARTICLE

One of the prosecutor’s accusations was also the allegation to the effect that, ‘Ahmet Şık, who published the letter by prosecutor Özcan Şişman, who played a key role in the intelligence agency lorries plot and is under remand for FETÖ involvement, in Cumhuriyet newspaper, is accused by this means of diverting the attack to the intelligence agency and trying to paper over FETÖ’s influence in the affair’ as written by Sabah newspaper reporter Nazif Kahraman at the said paper’s web site.

Finally, to the prosecutor’s accusation, ‘Prior to the murder of the slain Republic Prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, did you have discussions in any way with the people who were responsible for the event? Did you conduct an interview? Did these people make contact with you or did you make contact with these people and what is your connection with these people? Make your statements in this regard,’ Ahmet Şık made an answer that covered all the questions by saying:

‘I wish to make an answer in general terms to all the above questions. Had the 15 July putsch attempt succeeded, we would have experienced what we are now experiencing, that is, the coup having been prevented does not alter the fact that a junta is in power, and in such a period I deem it to be an insult to my professional ethics for my professional activities to be subjected to investigation, nor may anybody presume to do this, in a procedure in which the very judiciary, which in any case has a history of being problematic, is so weakly associated with the law.

I thus do not wish to reply to these questions; had the judiciary been capable of being independent, impartial and just, then I would have wished to reply and, in any case, there would have been no such investigation. One of the questions that the prosecutor’s office posed was posed premised on a report signed by Nazif Karaman and published in Sabah newspaper; in the news report certain points are raised in which I am accused citing the prosecutor’s office, but the question relates directly to the matter reported in the news article. It took the form of asking me to comment on the allegation of the person who wrote the story.

Is the prosecutor’s office that reports to the Ministry of Justice conducting the investigation, or is a media employee conducting it? I have previously experienced the routine that is now being staged. The days of war currently being experienced are the upshot of the battle for the throne between the AKP and the Gülen Brotherhood that erupted in 2011, and we now find ourselves confronted by, to use the word that has acquired currency, FETÖ, which refers to the Gülen Brotherhood, which previously had a name that few people even dared to mention. In the Ergenekon process, those in the Gülen Brotherhood’s ranks who constituted a criminal organisation embedded within the police and judiciary and the AKP government that acted as this gang’s political approval office initially subjected whoever they targeted to character assassination with unfounded accusations in media organs close to them, then the targeted people were arrested by police officers belonging to this criminal organisation and, at the end of their time under arrest, they were brought before the prosecutor’s office that was another adjunct of the criminal organisation and the fate you would meet there was already known. Being sent with an application for remand, with the judges in any case being another link in the criminal organisation’s chain, was part of a predetermined routine involving accusation, investigation and sentencing. As a result of the war waged against one another by the two former partners, members of the Gülen Brotherhood’s ranks appear to have been purged to a large extent from the police force and judiciary. But the process of trampling on the law that we encountered in that period continues to play out with new placemen and in a viler manner. When I was accused of having connections to the Ergenekon organisation five years ago, my professional activities were subjected to investigation. Now the attempt is being made to subject my professional activities to investigation under another name and, at this stage, I have nothing more to say.

THE PROSECUTOR HAS NO PERMISSION TO INVESTIGATE UNDER ARTICLE 301

One of Ahmet Şık's lawyers, Tora Pekin, has said that investigation under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code is subject to permission and questioned whether this permission had been obtained. Regarded the accusations levelled against Ahmet Şık, lawyer Pekin, saying, ‘It is not absolutely clear what the accusation is from the questions asked,’ said ‘It is impossible to fathom which article of the Turkish Penal Code has been breached, and on what grounds. This situation is in violation of express provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Questions such as, “What do you think” or “What did you mean” can only be used to gauge intentions and not to hold an interrogation into any crime.’

THEY POSED NAZİF KARAMAN'S STORY AS A QUESTION

Lawyer Can Atalay also noted that the arrest procedure was unlawful and made a reminder that journalism was a public duty. Atalay stated that a printout taken from the internet of a story written by Nazif Karaman, a reporter on the pro-AKP Sabah newspaper, after Şık had been arrested was read directly and posed as a question and this was also unlawful.

PERMANENT TWEET ASKED ABOUT

It is noteworthy that, among the questions Ahmet Şık was asked, one was about the tweet that is permanently positioned on his Twitter profile. The prosecutor posed the question to Ahmet Şık, ‘What and who was referred to in the post, “Its God changes, it does not change itself and the only religion is fascism” at your Twitter account? Explain this matter.’

AHMET ŞIK'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN BREACHED

Lawyer Evren İşler, noting that the charge had not been made in concrete terms, also pointed out that a great many of Ahmet Şık’s rights enshrined under the Constitution and international agreements had been breached.